My article “Pediatric Chiropractic Care: The Subluxation Question and Referral Risk” was published in the 2016 February issue of the journal Bioethics. The abstract summarizes the message of the article:
Chiropractors commonly treat children for a variety of ailments by manipulating the spine to correct a “vertebral subluxation” or a “vertebral subluxation complex” alleged to be a cause of disease. Such treatment might begin soon after a child is born. Both major American chiropractic associations─the International Chiropractic Association and the American Chiropractic Association─support chiropractic care for children, care that includes subluxation correction as a treatment or preventive measure. I do not know of any credible evidence to support chiropractic subluxation theory. Any attempt to manipulate the immature, cartilaginous spine of a neonate or a small child to correct a putative chiropractic subluxation should be regarded as dangerous and unnecessary. Referral of a child to a chiropractor for such treatment should not be considered lest a bad outcome harms the child or leads to a charge of negligence or malpractice.1
The first objection to my article came in a January 30 Facebook posting by Milehighchiro, a subluxation-based group: (more…)
Daniel David Palmer, creator of the nebulous subluxation and father of chiropractic.
It has been almost five years to the day since I wrote my first post in “The DC as PCP” series. These posts (listed here) chronicle the continuing battles among various factions within the chiropractic profession over the subluxation and its many iterations, educational requirements for chiropractic colleges, their legal scope of practice, and whether chiropractors are – or are not—primary care physicians (PCPs). At its heart, the controversy boils down to this essential issue: what is “chiropractic” and what is it that chiropractors do? Or, perhaps, should do.
At one end of the spectrum is the straight chiropractor, who wants to make his living detecting and correcting subluxations for all manner of problems. These are the chiropractors who claim newborns need adjustments for “birth trauma” and maintenance care is necessary to good health. At the other end are those promoting the idea that chiropractors are primary care physicians capable of seeing the undifferentiated patient, form a differential diagnosis, and either treat the patient or coordinate the patient’s care with other health care professionals.
Neither has any basis in reality. The subluxation is a chiropractic fiction. And the notion that chiropractors have the necessary education and training to act as primary care physicians is no less a fiction.
Apparently unrepresented in this battle is the chiropractor who wants to see the profession as evidence-based spine care specialists based on a model of specialty care like podiatry and dentistry. (more…)
Subluxation-based chiropractic care is sustained more by faith than by facts
Much of what is discussed in this article has been said before in previous articles I have written for Science-Based Medicine. But since the audience for SBM has greatly increased over the past few years, some subject matter should be repeated for the new readers and researchers coming to this site for reliable information on health care.
Many consumers now search SBM for articles dealing with controversial alternative treatment methods that have been shown to be ineffective or to be loaded with fraud and quackery. Chiropractic in particular continues to be problematic for its failure to renounce the scientifically indefensible, nonfalsifiable subluxation theory that defines the profession as a whole. A review of chiropractic web sites reveals that many chiropractors continue to base their treatment methods on subluxation theory, encompassing a broad scope of health problems. Some chiropractors are now including use of “functional medicine” which uses “natural tools” to treat diabetes, thyroid disease, neuropathy, and other diseases best treated by conventional medical care. Most alarming of all is the treatment of infants and children by “pediatric chiropractors.” Chiropractors are being certified in 10 different specialties, including a diplomate in Diagnosis and Internal Disorders.
As long as chiropractic is licensed as a health-care profession based on subluxation theory or some other unscientific approach, it will continue to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism by the science-based community. It is, in fact, the moral and ethical responsibility of science-based practitioners to oppose any form of unscientific health care, wherever it might exist, separating sense from nonsense without being influenced by politics, special interest, pseudoscience, or belief systems.
Coming soon, to a chiropractor’s office near you?
Chiropractors are once again engaged in intra-fraternal warfare over the chiropractic scope of practice, a saga we’ve chronicled before on SBM. (See the references at end of this post.) Every time it looks like the warring factions have buried their differences, they come rising to the surface like zombies.
The International Chiropractors Association (ICA), representing the “straight” faction, wants chiropractic to continue as a drugless profession. They are happy to detect and correct subluxations, thereby removing “nerve interference” and “allowing the body to heal itself” in the tradition of Daniel David Palmer. But the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) has bigger fish to fry.
This time, the ICA is upset that the ACA House of Delegates up and decided to establish a “College of Pharmacology and Toxicology,” which would operate under the auspices of the ACA Council on Diagnosis and Internal Disorders. The ACA’s announcement of the “College” is rather vague on details:
The purpose of the College is to further educate the chiropractic profession on clinical matters related to the widespread use of both prescription and over-the-counter medications and nutritional supplements.
I e-mailed the ACA several days ago asking for more information but have yet to receive a reply.
The ICA sees this move as yet another attempt by:
forces at work within some organizations actively promoting incorporating drugs into the chiropractic scope of practice.
The saga of chiropractic began in 1895 when D.D. Palmer, a magnetic healer, announced that “95 percent of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints.” Palmer opened the first chiropractic school in Davenport, Iowa, offering a three-week course of study at the Palmer School and Cure, subsequently renamed the Palmer School of Chiropractic. The school was taken over by B.J. Palmer, the son of D.D. Palmer, in 1906. In 1910, the course of instruction was six months. Kansas and North Dakota were the first states to pass laws legalizing the practice of chiropractic (in 1913 and 1915). By 1921, the Palmer School of Chiropractic, requiring 18 months of study, had 2,000 students, reaching a peak enrollment of 3,600 in 1922. By 1923, 27 states had chiropractic licensing boards. Hundreds of chiropractic schools sprang up, some offering correspondence courses. There were no entrance requirements, anyone could become a chiropractor. H.L. Mencken wrote in the December 11th, 1924, issue of the Baltimore Evening Sun:
Today the backwoods swarm with chiropractors, and in most States they have been able to exert enough pressure on the rural politicians to get themselves licensed. Any lout with strong hands and arms is perfectly equipped to become a chiropractor. No education beyond the elements is necessary.1
Although Palmer’s subluxation theory was contrary to all known laws of anatomy and physiology, the theory was appealing to the general public. Medical science was in its infancy, struggling to find effective and safe remedies for disease and infection. There was no known cure for many common ailments, and many of the medicines used by physicians were ineffective or harmful. In the public marketplace, the door was wide open for snake oil salesmen, entrepreneurs, and opportunists who could mix a concoction or fabricate a new treatment guaranteed to work. With growing numbers of chiropractors treating disease and infection by adjusting the spine to relieve alleged pressure on spinal nerves, offering treatment claimed to be superior to medical care, members of the medical community felt an obligation to oppose what they viewed to be blatant, unbridled quackery.
An old Palmer illustration showing how a displaced vertebra could cause disease by pinching a spinal nerve.
I am often asked, “What do chiropractors do?” That’s not an easy question to answer. The answer is usually expected to be, “They treat back trouble.” But as alternative medicine practitioners, chiropractors do a lot of things, and they treat a variety of ailments, based largely on a scientifically-invalid vertebral subluxation theory which proposes that nerve interference resulting from a misaligned vertebra or a dysfunctional spinal segment can affect general health.
As a co-host of the Chirobase web site, I frequently answer questions about chiropractic, some of which are published in a section titled “Consumer Strategy/Consumer Protection.” In this post, I’ll focus on these:
- Are Subluxations Causing My Health Problems?
- Is a Misaligned Atlas Causing My Back Pain?
- What is that “Thumper” My Chiropractor Uses on My Back?
- How Does a Chiropractor Locate Subluxations?
- Should I Let a Chiropractor Adjust My Baby?
- Why Is Every Chiropractor’s Treatment Different?
- Can Neck Manipulation Cause a Stroke?
- Should I Go to a Chiropractic College?
- Are There Any Good Chiropractors?
- Is It Possible to Reform the Chiropractic Profession?
By far, most of the questions I receive express concern about questionable methods and advice offered in the offices of chiropractors. Many questions are generated by the suspicions of patients who initially visited a chiropractor for treatment of back pain and who were then offered spinal adjustments as a treatment for health problems unrelated to the spine. Patients are often concerned about the expense involved in such care, usually extended over a long period of time, followed by “maintenance care” to correct or prevent “vertebral subluxations” after symptoms have resolved. I generally advise patients to refuse chiropractic care for anything other than a musculoskeletal problem, to seek treatment only when symptoms are present, never pay for treatment in advance, and to discontinue treatment and see an orthopedic specialist if symptoms worsen after a few days or have not subsided after a week or so.
Chiropractors often deny that neck manipulation can be a primary cause of stroke by injuring vertebral arteries. But according to Jean-Yves Maigne, M.D., head of the Department of Physical Medicine at the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Paris, France:
It is now a well established fact that cervical thrust manipulation can harm the vertebral artery. This accident was formerly regarded as very rare, although severe, and related to atherosclerosis. Clinical tests were proposed to detect patients at risk. The problem is now better known. It is no longer attributed to atherosclerosis…but to a dissection of a vertebral artery, a clinical entity observed in younger patients (20-45 years). It remains very rare, but mild symptoms appear to be not so infrequent. Finally, the predicting tests seem to be deprived of any value.1
In 1997, the French Society of Orthopaedic and Osteopathic Manual Medicine (SOFMMOO), following presentations by anatomists, neurologists, radiologists, and practitioners in the field of French Manual Medicine, adopted the neck-manipulation proposals made by Dr. Maigne.1 “Acknowledging the fact that prevention is out of reach,” said Dr. Maigne, “the aim of these recommendations is to reduce the number of (not to say to suppress) rotational cervical thrust manipulations in a targeted population. This population consists mainly in females of less than 50 years old. Five recommendations were developed, in addition to classic contraindications of spinal manipulative therapy.”
The recommendations of the SOFMMOO, dealing with cervical manipulation in general and allowing the use of neck manipulation in special cases, are worth considering since they were reviewed by medical specialists in different disciplines and approved by licensed practitioners who use manual therapy, long before the stroke-neck-manipulation furor reached its peak in the United States.
Although obscured by controversy, there is evidence to indicate that spinal manipulation can be as effective as conventional treatment methods in relieving low-back pain.1,2,3,4 This grain of truth mixed with chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory that encompasses a broad scope of ailments makes it difficult for the average person to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate use of manipulation by chiropractors. A person who is satisfied with chiropractic manipulative treatment for back pain might be led to believe that the same treatment can be used to treat a variety of organic ailments by correcting “vertebral subluxations.” Such treatment is usually described as a “chiropractic adjustment.”
A manual chiropractic adjustment
Although chiropractic care based on subluxation theory has been rejected by the scientific community, spinal manipulation used in the treatment of mechanical-type back pain has a plausible basis that makes it acceptable in mainstream healthcare. A good back-cracking back rub provided by a chiropractor or some other manual therapist can be a pleasurable, pain-relieving experience, and this can be a preferred method of treatment for some types of back pain. But you should be well-informed enough to know where to draw the line in separating subluxation-based chiropractic adjustments from appropriate use of generic spinal manipulation if you should consider treatment by a chiropractor. Otherwise, you might become the victim of the bait-and-switch tactics of chiropractors who offer you treatment for back pain and then attempt to indoctrinate you in subluxation theory.
Much of what follows in this article has been said before in other articles of mine posted on this site. An up-to-date summary of basic concerns about chiropractic care, however, might be useful for new readers and others, including professionals, who want a brief overview for quick reference in seeking answers to questions about the problematic aspects of chiropractic use of spinal manipulation.
On the slim chance that you’ve been perched on the edge of your seat wondering how the New Mexico appellate court ruled on chiropractic prescription privileges, whether the Council on Chiropractic Education got approved for another three years as an accrediting agency, if NCCAM ever came clean about spinal manipulation, and the fate of Brandon Babcock, DC, at the hands of the judicial system, here are your updates.
Prescription privileges for New Mexico chiropractors
A surprisingly titillating tidbit about New Mexico “advanced practice” chiropractors.
As discussed in previous posts, New Mexico “advanced practice” chiropractors succeeded in getting limited prescription rights. The statute specifically says they can:
prescribe, administer and dispense herbal medicines, homeopathic medicines, over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, glandular products, protomorphogens, live cell products, gerovital, amino acids, dietary supplements, foods for special dietary use, bioidentical hormones, sterile water, sterile saline, sarapin or its generic, caffeine, procaine, oxygen, epinephrine and vapocoolants.
Dangerous drugs or controlled substances, drugs for administration by injection and substances not listed [above] shall be submitted to the board of pharmacy and the New Mexico medical board for approval.
Apparently, the Chiropractic board couldn’t read the plain language of the statute and blew off this requirement, even though their own lawyer told them they couldn’t. This got them hauled into court by the medical and pharmacy boards. The International Chiropractors Association joined the fight. (more…)
Three years ago, we reported that the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) was deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over its new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. In a June, 2012 update of that post, we found the CCE still deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. Current events, however, require that we now report that the CCE remains deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. And it has come to this:
Ostensibly, the debate is about whether chiropractic students should be taught to detect and correct the putative subluxation and CCE’s commitment to chiropractic’s remaining a drug and surgery-free practice. As we have discussed several times here at SBM, a faction of chiropractors fancy themselves as primary care physicians who are competent to diagnose and treat patients with a wide variety of diseases and conditions, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, with various methods, such as “Functional Endocrinology.” This is, in fact, the position of the largest and most mainstream of the chiropractic trade associations, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA). (The ACA is actively promoting reimbursement of chiropractors for required primary care benefits under the Affordable Care Act.)
At the other end of the spectrum, the chiropractic purists (or “straights”) believe chiropractors should limit themselves to the detection and correction of the (non-existent) chiropractic subluxation. And they are adamant about chiropractic remaining “without drugs or surgery.”
Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, chiropractic belief in the subluxation is widespread among chiropractors in North America and in Australia. And as far as I can tell, chiropractors who eschew belief in the subluxation have merely renamed it and redefined it in terms so vague as to be meaningless. Those who want to expand chiropractic to include a broader range of treatments do not exclude the subluxation as a relevant clinical entity. They’ve simply tarted it up in an attempt to obscure its lack of scientific viability. (more…)